I haven't seen a flat panel display yet that's completely useable with polarized sunglasses. They all go black at certain angles.

Honestly, the iPad is the only flat panel I've ever looked at with sun glasses on with the exception of my iPhone that I can use no problem. The iPad however is black at virtually any angle when wearing polarized lenses. I can normally find just one or two angles where I can barely see things when wearing my sunglasses. Good to know though. Thanks.

In my ideal scenario you carry only one camera and the images and clips are streamed to the iPad/Wifi & HDD device/laptop during the short breaks between shooting. When you get back to the iPad you can begin your culling process while waiting for the remaining images to transfer if any. If you're in a rush, you can still just pull the SD card and transfer the remainder via wire.

You also almost never need to swap cards unless you want to because the card is being emptied as the pictures and videos are moved over to the host device.

If you're continuously shooting video then you're stuck needing to do a wire transfer but if you're predominantly shooting lots of clips of action then those files will transfer as you have breaks where they can transmit. For obvious reasons you probably don't want the system to be doing anything else while you're actively shooting.

This is pretty much what Eye-Fi does today...just not directly to the iPad or some mobile time capsule like device. This could change if Eye-Fi releases an iPad client app...which would be very nice.

Still there isn't a whole lot of space on the iPad if you're doing this for a long vacation. Which is why I'd prefer a mobile time capsule like device (that can also do 3G if you want) that provides the iPad with additional storage.

Thinking about it more and given the fact I sometimes bring along my Airport Express on trips I might also add an ethernet port in addition to the single USB port. That way if I'm at a hotel with wired ethernet it acts as an access point as well.

So my ideal little box:

6 hours battery life
1.8" 320GB HDD
802.11N wireless access point for up to 10 users
USB 2.0 port for 3G modem, file transfer or power (or dock connector if you prefer)
GigE Ethernet port
iTunes server
Wireless NAS File server that appears as an iDisk to iPhone/iPad/iDevices.
Eye-Fi host
The size of 2 iPod classics stacked on top of each other.
$349

Quote:

I have a 4 MPx Cannon Powershot-- it takes 15 seconds for a 4 MP image over USB-- I timed it, so I tend to believe it.

Now you want to replace a wired USB connection with something half the speed, at best. And, you expect better performance... It just doesn't make sense.

You may wish to consider that your camera may have USB 1.1 vs USB 2.0. Given the higher end PowerShot G3 was USB 1.1 I'm going to guess all the 4MP PowerShots are 1.1.

If DPReview says it sees the Canon PowerShot A570IS sending 8 MP picture in 16 sec via Eye-Fi I'm inclined to believe them. That's not particularly fast and these folks are highly respected in their reviews.

As to whether or not the Eye-Fi product has legs or the wifi concept is viable here a couple of indicators:

There's an Apple Store exclusive Eye-Fi version for geo-tagging for iPhoto. Somehow I don't see Apple asking for or even allowing an exclusive for something that doesn't work. Heck, I didn't even know Apple sold cameras.

Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Casio, Pentax, Sanyo and Sony have Eye-Fi support built into them. This ranges from simply staying on until the transfer is complete to showing you which photos and videos have transferred, turning on and off the wifi and showing thumbnails of what's being transferred.

I think the most compelling argument is that camera manufacturers consider this product highly enough to build support directly into their camera menus and firmware for it...even in their new flagship products like Sony's Nex.

Thanks for that... I was going to reply but didn't have the energy to doo it justice!

Quote:

In my ideal scenario you carry only one camera and the images and clips are streamed to the iPad/Wifi & HDD device/laptop during the short breaks between shooting. When you get back to the iPad you can begin your culling process while waiting for the remaining images to transfer if any. If you're in a rush, you can still just pull the SD card and transfer the remainder via wire.

You also almost never need to swap cards unless you want to because the card is being emptied as the pictures and videos are moved over to the host device.

If you're continuously shooting video then you're stuck needing to do a wire transfer but if you're predominantly shooting lots of clips of action then those files will transfer as you have breaks where they can transmit. For obvious reasons you probably don't want the system to be doing anything else while you're actively shooting.

If this were doable over WiFi (endless storage) for semi-continuous shooting, I would change my habits and stop recording more often... I often do this when I am on my last battery or SD card.

One potential problem with endless storage, you are just moving your content from one device to the other.. what happens if there is a failure? Are you left with 2 partial copies, None?

I understand that most professionals like to backup their content (in original format) in case of failure. Endless storage is counter to that process and opens the potential to lose everything, No?

Quote:

This is pretty much what Eye-Fi does today...just not directly to the iPad or some mobile time capsule like device. This could change if Eye-Fi releases an iPad client app...which would be very nice.

Still there isn't a whole lot of space on the iPad if you're doing this for a long vacation. Which is why I'd prefer a mobile time capsule like device (that can also do 3G if you want) that provides the iPad with additional storage.

That's a different use case... one that could involve a laptop back at the hotel, cloud, internet connection to home computer device. First, I want to address the long day, out and about.

Quote:

Thinking about it more and given the fact I sometimes bring along my Airport Express on trips I might also add an ethernet port in addition to the single USB port. That way if I'm at a hotel with wired ethernet it acts as an access point as well.

So my ideal little box:

6 hours battery life
1.8" 320GB HDD
802.11N wireless access point for up to 10 users
USB 2.0 port for 3G modem, file transfer or power (or dock connector if you prefer)
GigE Ethernet port
iTunes server
Wireless NAS File server that appears as an iDisk to iPhone/iPad/iDevices.
Eye-Fi host
The size of 2 iPod classics stacked on top of each other.
$349

Be careful of feature creep! Battery, Storage, Connection (WiFi or wired)-- everything else is just frosting!

Quote:

You may wish to consider that your camera may have USB 1.1 vs USB 2.0. Given the higher end PowerShot G3 was USB 1.1 I'm going to guess all the 4MP PowerShots are 1.1.

I think it is ca 2003-4 and, likely, is USB 1.1.

Quote:

If DPReview says it sees the Canon PowerShot A570IS sending 8 MP picture in 16 sec via Eye-Fi I'm inclined to believe them. That's not particularly fast and these folks are highly respected in their reviews.

As to whether or not the Eye-Fi product has legs or the wifi concept is viable here a couple of indicators:

There's an Apple Store exclusive Eye-Fi version for geo-tagging for iPhoto. Somehow I don't see Apple asking for or even allowing an exclusive for something that doesn't work. Heck, I didn't even know Apple sold cameras.

Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Casio, Pentax, Sanyo and Sony have Eye-Fi support built into them. This ranges from simply staying on until the transfer is complete to showing you which photos and videos have transferred, turning on and off the wifi and showing thumbnails of what's being transferred.

I think the most compelling argument is that camera manufacturers consider this product highly enough to build support directly into their camera menus and firmware for it...even in their new flagship products like Sony's Nex.

I would like to see them offer an iPhone app for purchase (or free for, trial) without the need to purchase the SD card-- in effect, build it into the iPhone. This would help them to prove and promote the concept.

I'll make a suggestion on the Eye-Fi web site.

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

He is. Power lines is the classic example that most folks are familiar with. The max observed human acuity is around 20/8 if I remember right and the average around 20/16. There are some sharp eyed folks out there.

Vernier acuity takes you down to around 8-10 arc seconds vs that 1 arc minute. This means a lot more in the real analog world I think than the digital one...the gigapixl camera can image to this level of detail but probably not much else...

In real life you can probably see all the power lines in that picture (all the way down that road). Even with a high end DLSR with good glass and huge 14MP sensor I bet you don't have that data in the raw imagery.

20/20 is considered to be a good normal eye. I'm seeing words like "perfect vision" being thrown about in this argument. But's that impossible. no one has perfect vision.

The power line example, and there are others, doesn't mean much when discussing displays. The absolute amount of light presented in a clear sky is far greater than what we see on our monitors, and especially in small mobile devices, where displays are less bright.

Contrast is everything. EVERYTHING!!!

Visual acuity simply is a meaningless concept without taking the contrast into effect. We have the same thing with telescopes. There is only one star that even the biggest current telescope can image, and that is our own. Every other star we see in a photograph is not being imaged. That is, it's not being imaged as a disk. What's happening is that so many photons are hitting that one sensing spot, that it images them. now, depending on the sensitivity of the sensor, that may be millions of photons, or just a handful, but it's enough to illuminate it, even though the photons aren't illuminating the entire diameter of the spot.

Our eyes have the same problem when looking at the night sky. we aren't imaging any stars as disks, just bright spots of light.

So the question is what that means.

I can set up an experiment in which a person is in a dark room. There is a sealed box in the room. A tiny pinhole is made in the side of the box facing the person, and inside, is a bulb. When we put the box so that the pinhole is further away than the eye can resolve we can still see the light coming from the pinhole IF it is bright enough!

But if we turn the brightness down on the bulb, at a certain point, it won't be seen. But if the box is brought closer, it will be seen again, until the brightness is again turned down. This can be repeated several times.

This is why when lenses are tested, or vision is tested, contrast is considered as well.

If we have an alternating pattern of white and black lines, where the white line is almost specular, and the black lines are total black, we will be able to see them, if we have a vision of 20/20 or about .6 arc minute.

But as we lower the contrast between the lines, our acuity drops. At a certain point, all we will see is a field of solid grey. Increase the width of the lines, and again we can see them at the lower contrast. Continue lowering the contrast, and again we just see grey.

This is true with color as well. We are more sensitive to green than to red or blue. It's very complex.

When someone comes on and says that we can see such and such, it's wrong. It depends on what we're looking at.

As far as photo's graphics and video goes, 300 ppi at 12" is considered to be about the finest detail that a normal, good eye can see. I totally agree, based on my decades in the photo industry, and my own bio studies.

Both what was written here, and Soneira's remarks are just wrong. They are taking the lab test results of human vision, which are intentionally very limited, as we just try to test ONE variable at a time, and imposing that onto the varied daily visual experiences we have.

I take particular exception to someone coming on and making specific remarks that have little to do with the real world situation. I'd hate to be in that class. It seems to be too limited.

Huh??? Explain please... I thought one of the big features of iOS 4 was multitasking? Or are you in some way referring to multitasking related to the camera/flash in some way?

It's not really multitasking. True multitasking is where background apps are still doing their thing. For example, if the new video edition needed, let's say for the point of the discussion, 30 minutes to finish an edit. So you go to Pandora, and turn that on. Now we've got background editing, and Pandora working. We now go and open the app store and buy a big program over WiFi, say a traffic program of 1GB. We open up numbers, and have it begin to recalculate a large spreadsheet. Now, we go and open Safari.

So the phone is doing all of that at once, for as long as every program needs to.

Well, we can't do all of that. iOS 4 will allow Pandora, and Safari at once, maybe it will allow the app to be downloaded, but it won't allow the video edit to extend for more than ten minutes. It might not allow that. It's possible that it won't allow the download to either. It won't finish the Numbers recalculation.

What is happening is that programs are saving their state, and then shutting off, effectively. When you go to them again, without having to "close" what you're in, by the multitasking panel, they open up immediately, at the same place they were in. Everything continues on from where it left.

Have you ever played a game that continued on in the background? I have had a few over the years. You come back to the game, and things have moved on. That won't happen here.

20/20 is considered to be a good normal eye. I'm seeing words like "perfect vision" being thrown about in this argument. But's that impossible. no one has perfect vision.

I guess he means "the best measured in a human".

Quote:

The power line example, and there are others, doesn't mean much when discussing displays. The absolute amount of light presented in a clear sky is far greater than what we see on our monitors, and especially in small mobile devices, where displays are less bright.

Contrast is everything. EVERYTHING!!!

Contrast is very important...unless the data simply isn't there. With insufficient resolution you simply can't see something that has been removed regardless right?

So, while there's no guarantee that you can see it in a high rez display due to contrast, you certainly can't if it ain't there.

Quote:

When someone comes on and says that we can see such and such, it's wrong. It depends on what we're looking at.

As far as photo's graphics and video goes, 300 ppi at 12" is considered to be about the finest detail that a normal, good eye can see. I totally agree, based on my decades in the photo industry, and my own bio studies.

Both what was written here, and Soneira's remarks are just wrong. They are taking the lab test results of human vision, which are intentionally very limited, as we just try to test ONE variable at a time, and imposing that onto the varied daily visual experiences we have.

I take particular exception to someone coming on and making specific remarks that have little to do with the real world situation. I'd hate to be in that class. It seems to be too limited.

While I don't have your background I do believe that higher resolution displays are required to replicate real-world images even if the theoretical limit is satisfied for a certain distance/display size. 4K projectors and things like the Giglpixl indicate that theoretical limits aside, these images are more lifelike than those images riding the edge of those limits. Yes, higher contrast is also required in addition to resolution to see that information but that information has to be there in the first place.

2 cameras for facechat.............Video phonecalls have been around since the 1964 Worlds Fair. It's a novelty, but not something most people would use everyday. Don't get me wrong it has its uses. Also being its a WiFI program will limit its use as well.
As for the screen, lets wait and see what it looks like in real life. Everyones knocking it name (Retina Display) IMO it should be impressive.
IPHONE4 should be an impressive piece of hardware. However it's still missing many features that cellphones have had for years

In any case I'm going to reserve my hard analysis till I see and use it in real life.

2 cameras for facechat.............Video phonecalls have been around since the 1964 Worlds Fair. It's a novelty, but not something most people would use everyday. Don't get me wrong it has its uses. Also being its a WiFI program will limit its use as well.

Not to contradict your main point, but I remember the "video phone" from the 1964 World's Fair, and it was hardly a fully-baked technology. You sat in a booth and could see someone sitting in the next booth. That was all. A concept, or more like an entertainment -- with no hope for implementation outside of an exhibit. Has Apple cracked this one 45 years later? I don't know.

2 cameras for facechat.............Video phonecalls have been around since the 1964 Worlds Fair. It's a novelty, but not something most people would use everyday. Don't get me wrong it has its uses. Also being its a WiFI program will limit its use as well.
As for the screen, lets wait and see what it looks like in real life. Everyones knocking it name (Retina Display) IMO it should be impressive.
IPHONE4 should be an impressive piece of hardware. However it's still missing many features that cellphones have had for years

In any case I'm going to reserve my hard analysis till I see and use it in real life.

Just curious. What are the "many" features other cellphones have had for years that it's missing now?

Just curious. What are the "many" features other cellphones have had for years that it's missing now?

— Physical numberpad/keyboard
— Large size so you are less likely to loss it
— Cheap feel and low resale value that make you not care if you lose it
— Battery saving design by not being useful for much more than making phone calls

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Physical numberpad/keyboard
Large size so you are less likely to loss it
Cheap feel and low resale value that make you not care if you lose it
Battery saving design by not being useful for much more than making phone calls

Physical keyboard doesn't count either way, I guess. Most new phones are coming without one, so that's a "feature" but not a requirement.

Large size? What does that even mean? The EVO is TOO big. and now Dell has the Streak smartphone/fake tablet which is even larger, with a 5" screen. Too big for a phone, too small for a tablet. What will they thunk of next?

Cheap feel and low resale value is sort of an inverse feature I suppose.

Battery design. Sure, I guess Apple could move backwards to match that "feature".

It's harder to lose things that are large. That why I go jogging with THESE instead of an iPod Shuffle.

That's kind of a curious point. How could you lose something you're listening to? If you were to use a Shuffle for jogging, would you just clip it to your collar and not listen to it? If the damn thing falls off, the music would stop! I think someone might notice that. It's unloseable.

That's kind of a curious point. How could you lose something you're listening to? If you were to use a Shuffle for jogging, would you just clip it to your collar and not listen to it? If the damn thing falls off, the music would stop! I think someone might notice that. It's unloseable.

1) What if it falls off while jogging? Which would be easier to find?

2) What about when you're not using them? Which would likely be easier to find if you forgot where you put them?

3) It was a joke.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I think you're seeing an optical illusion. Going by the measurements, it's barely any larger than iPhone 3G/3GS, about an 1/8" wider and 1/4" longer.

For a handheld product I think that is a significant size increase for comfortable usability. That doesn't mean I think it's a deal breaker, but I do think that the size and weight increase is a potential issue and a reason why we don't see more of these larger devices and why they have consistently shrunk in size as technology has allowed.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

For a handheld product I think that is a significant size increase for comfortable usability. That doesn't mean I think it's a deal breaker, but I do think that the size and weight increase is a potential issue and a reason why we don't see more of these larger devices and why they have consistently shrunk in size as technology has allowed.

To me, it seems like phones have gotten small enough, any smaller and it makes it too small for comfortable handing. This isn't the Newton MessagePad here, which really was way too large.

Physical keyboard doesn't count either way, I guess. Most new phones are coming without one, so that's a "feature" but not a requirement.

Large size? What does that even mean? The EVO is TOO big. and now Dell has the Streak smartphone/fake tablet which is even larger, with a 5" screen. Too big for a phone, too small for a tablet. What will they thunk of next?

Cheap feel and low resale value is sort of an inverse feature I suppose.

Battery design. Sure, I guess Apple could move backwards to match that "feature".

There are quite many of us who clearly prefer a physical keyboard and the screen tilted so that there will be a good viewing angle. Hope that the iPhone next model will have this, or that Apple makes an optional model with such a keyboard (not likely, but one can hope...)

There are quite many of us who clearly prefer a physical keyboard and the screen tilted so that there will be a good viewing angle. Hope that the iPhone next model will have this, or that Apple makes an optional model with such a keyboard (not likely, but one can hope...)

I say it doesn't count either way, because it's feature neutral. Some people prefer a clicky keyboard. Some people don't want them on the phone at all, and others don't care either way. It averages out.

There are quite many of us who clearly prefer a physical keyboard and the screen tilted so that there will be a good viewing angle. Hope that the iPhone next model will have this, or that Apple makes an optional model with such a keyboard (not likely, but one can hope...)

And some of us prefer a number pad with T9 text input. Which is why I never own an iPhone, or an Android Phone, or a Blackberry, or anything but a candy bar phone.

I love my Elm. And I love my iPod Touch for gaming and internet. I'll love the iPad. I'll freaking faint when I get my hands on an iPod Touch 4.